- 17 Jan 2012 17:46
#13874678
Good topic of discussion, though possibly drifting a little off course.
Surely, as Liberals, we support tolerance in the same way we support the law? or the rights of individuals and communities? We will allow pretty much anything, as long as it does not directly or (more problematically for arguing) indirectly, adversely effect others. Naturally, this could be interpreted to either right or left wings of the political spectrum - but that is where we get the liberal spectrum from, we don't all agree, just like any other ideology. Some may argue that much of what individuals do can adversely effect others - often making them lefter. Whilst many argue that individual liberty is more important - right wing. Personally, I think we are best suited to the centre ground, where we're balancing both groups out equally - but isn't that what being a Liberal is all about anyway?
It seems very clear to me that law is broken to enforce law, and thus tolerance must be broken to enforce tolerance. Naturally, most of us would never use the word "enforce", but that is exactly what we're doing when we face people with intolerant and often hostile values. Defending the weak requires the strong to be strong, I don't shy away from that what so ever. So in direct answer to the original question; we don't have to be tolerant of intolerance. Our value as liberals is tolerance, if that value comes under threat why shouldn't we defend it? Generally speaking I will always attempt to apply the harm principle, using my liberal values to only "crack down" when it is necessary (another value most other ideologies do not share).
So where does that leave us for a Liberal society?
This. We want a society of "higher" values, and fairness to all. However, nothing in those beliefs prevents us from acting if the occasion requires it, especially when that society is under threat. We're no where near it - the modern world is still far too hypocritical and immoral - but our present western society is at least on the right tracks. I would imagine it is our job to speed this along.
On a side note; Libertarians are not liberals, don't confuse this. They may have been liberals historically, but truth be told we are still a recently developing perspective. Hence why we will very often have different opinions and methods. It certainly hasn't helped our cause that many former liberals came from the "hippy" age, giving us a more "fluffy" out look. However, that age was a strong reaction to the times, and liberalism is indeed reactive. I have no doubt we would be more/less liberal depending on what we were against - but then again, this is the case for many political groups.
Surely, as Liberals, we support tolerance in the same way we support the law? or the rights of individuals and communities? We will allow pretty much anything, as long as it does not directly or (more problematically for arguing) indirectly, adversely effect others. Naturally, this could be interpreted to either right or left wings of the political spectrum - but that is where we get the liberal spectrum from, we don't all agree, just like any other ideology. Some may argue that much of what individuals do can adversely effect others - often making them lefter. Whilst many argue that individual liberty is more important - right wing. Personally, I think we are best suited to the centre ground, where we're balancing both groups out equally - but isn't that what being a Liberal is all about anyway?
It seems very clear to me that law is broken to enforce law, and thus tolerance must be broken to enforce tolerance. Naturally, most of us would never use the word "enforce", but that is exactly what we're doing when we face people with intolerant and often hostile values. Defending the weak requires the strong to be strong, I don't shy away from that what so ever. So in direct answer to the original question; we don't have to be tolerant of intolerance. Our value as liberals is tolerance, if that value comes under threat why shouldn't we defend it? Generally speaking I will always attempt to apply the harm principle, using my liberal values to only "crack down" when it is necessary (another value most other ideologies do not share).
So where does that leave us for a Liberal society?
Brother of Karl wrote:It's much better to combat speech we disagree with and bigotry WITH speech and leading by example than with force, because if we use force, it sends a negative message about our beliefs and is basically shooting ourselves in the foot
This. We want a society of "higher" values, and fairness to all. However, nothing in those beliefs prevents us from acting if the occasion requires it, especially when that society is under threat. We're no where near it - the modern world is still far too hypocritical and immoral - but our present western society is at least on the right tracks. I would imagine it is our job to speed this along.
On a side note; Libertarians are not liberals, don't confuse this. They may have been liberals historically, but truth be told we are still a recently developing perspective. Hence why we will very often have different opinions and methods. It certainly hasn't helped our cause that many former liberals came from the "hippy" age, giving us a more "fluffy" out look. However, that age was a strong reaction to the times, and liberalism is indeed reactive. I have no doubt we would be more/less liberal depending on what we were against - but then again, this is the case for many political groups.